{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220031005","title":"SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2003-03-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(b), 192.471(a), 192.491(c), 192.706(a), 192.707(a), 192.709(c), 192.731(c), 192.739(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220031005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220031005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220031005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220031005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192,  192.465(b),  192.471(a),  192.491(c),  192.706(a),  192.707(a),  192.709(c),  192.731(c),  192.739(d). The case was opened on 2003-03-05 and is reported as closed as of 2009-12-29. Proposed civil penalty: $5,000. Assessed civil penalty: $5,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220031005_Final Order_12292009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220031005/220031005_Final%20Order_12292009.pdf\n\n220031005_Final Order_12292009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220031005/220031005_Final%20Order_12292009_text.pdf\n\n220031005_Final Order_12292009_text.pdf\n\nDEC 29 2009\nMr. James C. Yardley, President\nSouthern Natural Gas Company\nP.O. Box 2563\nBirmingham, AL 35202-2563\nRE: CPF No. 2-2003-1005\nDear Mr. Yardley:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $5,000. I acknowledge receipt of and accept payment dated April\n5, 2003, in the amount of $5,000, as payment in full of the civil penalty assessed in the Final\nOrder. This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that\ndocument under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Patrick B. Pope, Vice President & General Counsel, Southern Natural Gas Company\nLinda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2464 5836]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSouthern Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 2-2003-1005\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween August 12 and December 11, 2002, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA),\nconducted an onsite safety inspection of the facilities and records of Southern Natural Gas\nCompany (SNG or Respondent) in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia. SNG, a\nsubsidiary of El Paso Corporation, operates approximately 7,600 miles of natural gas\ntransmission pipelines throughout the southern United States.\n1 Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated March 5, 2003, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that SNG committed various\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5,000 for the alleged\nviolations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 4, 2003 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to\none.\n1 Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was\ncreated to further the highest degree of safety in pipeline transportation and hazardous materials transportation. See,\nsection 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118\nStat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). See also, 70 Fed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005), re-delegating the pipeline\nsafety functions of the RSPA Administrator, PHMSA.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, SNG did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.706, which states:\n§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.\nLeakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However, in the\ncase of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with § 192.625\nwithout an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector equipment\nmust be conducted-\n(a) In Class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to conduct proper leakage surveys of a transmission\npipeline that transports gas in conformity with § 192.625 without an odor or odorant.\nSpecifically, it alleged that SNG failed to use detector equipment surveys on the following\nunodorized Class 3 transmission line segments:\n- North Main Line and Loop, MP 358.9 to MP 359.5 (cy2001, 2002)\n- Montgomery Columbus Line, MP 15.98 (+/-) to MP 16.2 (+/-) (cy2002).\nThe OPS Violation Report alleged that during its inspection, Respondent failed to demonstrate\nthat the required leak surveys had been conducted. It alleged that the class location status of the\nabove-referenced pipeline segments had changed to Class 3 but that SNG had failed to initiate\nthe required leak surveys. In its Response, SNG asserted that it believed that instrumented leak\nsurveys had been conducted on these lines but acknowledged that the surveys had not been\nproperly documented. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a) by failing to conduct instrumented leakage surveys\nof its transmission line at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar\nyear.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n\n\n\n3\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; degree of Respondent's culpability, the history of\nRespondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, and any effect that the\npenalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in\nattempting to comply with pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic\nbenefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and\nsuch other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a $5,000 civil penalty for the\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\nItem 4 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a),\nfor Respondent’s failure to conduct instrumented leakage surveys of a transmission line at\nintervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year. Respondent has not\nshown any circumstances that would justify its failure to conduct such surveys. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $5,000, which amount has already been paid by Respondent.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but\ndid not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) (Notice Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect\ncathodic protection rectifiers or other impressed current power sources six times\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months, to insure that\nthey were operating;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.471(a) (Notice Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nmaintain test lead wires connected to the pipeline so as to remain mechanically\nsecure and electrically conductive. Certain leads were indicated as missing on\ninspection reports dated 4/23/01 and 3/04/02 and as being re-installed on the\n8/6/02 inspection report;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c) (Notice Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nmaintain a record of each test, survey, or inspection required by Subpart l in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or to\nshow that a corrosive condition did not exist. These records must be retained for\nat least five years, except that records related to § 192.465(a) and (e) and §\n192.475(b) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service. No\nrecord was found of the pipe having been inspected for evidence of internal\n\n\n\n4\ncorrosion, as required by § 192.475(b), of the 12” hot tap coupon removed at MP\n19.269 on the 24” 2nd North Main Line (cy2002). Pipeline investigation and\nrepair records relating to the Gadsden Loop pig dig project did not show the\nanalysis or results of strength for pipe determinations, as required by § 192.485(c).\nAlso, some of the pipeline condition reports did not indicate the remedial\nmeasures taken for the corroded pipe;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.707 (Notice Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to place and\nmaintain line markers as close as practical over each buried main and transmission\nline, to identify the location of the transmission line or main to reduce the\npossibility of damage or interference. Respondent also allegedly failed to place\nand maintain line markers along each section of a main and transmission line that\nwas located aboveground in an area accessible to the public;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a) and (c) (Notice Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nmaintain records, for as long as the transmission line remains in service, that\ndetail the date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe. Respondent\nalso allegedly failed to maintain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and\ntest required by Subparts L and M of this part for at least five years or until the\nnext patrol, survey, inspection, or test was completed, whichever was longer.\nRecords of the cy2000 leak repair made on the North Main Loop, MP 127.4 were\nallegedly incomplete. The Notice alleged that the pipeline repair methods\n(§ 192.717), replacement pipe specifications (§ 192.717), and NDT records of the\nweld-over fitting welds (§ 192.719(b)), were not found. It further alleged that\nrecords of testing of repairs made by welding (NDT of repair fillet welds) required\nby § 192.719(b), were not found for the pipeline repairs made on the South Main\n1st and 3rd Loops, MP 256.6 (Wolf Creek) in September 2000. Valves indicated\nas being “critical” on system operating maps were not documented as havint been\ninspected/tested in 2001 (§ 192.745);\n49 C.F.R. § 192.731(c) (Notice Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect\nand test relief devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year, to determine that they function properly. Respondent’s records\nallegedly indicated that compressor high discharge pressure shutdown systems at\nDeArmanville (unit 10) and Gwinville (units 10 and 12) were not tested in their\nentirety. Although applicable pressure transmitters were indicated as being tested,\nthe system setpoint and output functions were either not tested or not recorded as\ntested, as required by § 192.731(c). Similar electronic setpoint and outputs that\ncontrol high discharge pressure at the York and Auburn compressor stations were\nallegedly not documented as having been tested; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.739 (a-d)\n\n\n\n5\n(Notice Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect and test each pressure\nlimiting station, relief device, and pressure regulating station and its equipment at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ndetermine that it is: (a) in good mechanical condition; (b) adequate from the\nstandpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is\nemployed; (c) set to function at the correct pressure; and, (d) properly installed\nand protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions that might prevent proper\noperation. Inspections of the Calera Tap back-flow regulator station allegedly\nexceeded the 15-month maximum interval by three days (inspected 04/27/01 and\n07/30/02). The high pressure override control function for the Gwinville flow\ncontrol valve (valve #17, software based controls) was allegedly not tested to\nassure that it would function at the correct pressure.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 have occurred and Respondent is\nhereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation for any of these\nitems in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\n___________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":13204}